Comparing Rich with Poor: Moral Bankruptcy

[Bfgrn]

I simply don't see Sowell that way at all. He is a great example of somebody who is pretty much a wholly self-made man. His dad died before he was born and his mom, who already had four kids to raise, simply could not handle a newborn so his great aunt and her daughters raised him. A highschool drop out and self-proclaimed Marxist, he served in Korea and, via his military credentials, landed a low level government job that allowed him to attend night classes and eventually graduate summa cum laude from Harvard and earn a PhD in economics and an emphasis on history. By that time he had figured out the serious flaws in Marxism and rejected it in favor of free market principles and is currently a strong libertarian (small 'L"). He knows what it is to be at the bottom, and he knows what earned success looks and feels like.

He is right that indoctrinating people with class envy is destructive which I think was his motive for the article cited in the OP. But I don't get the sense that he just writes junk or promotes stuff for personal gain. I have been following his writings since the early 1980's and he has never written what was 'popular' or 'commercially attractive' and his convictions have been rock solid.

Dr. Sowell is a very smart man, no doubt. Phd. in economics etc. and I read his work sometimes and agree sometimes. One thing I might ask him though. Could he have gotten his degrees while working in today's economy with the cost of education the way it is now? If he's a veteran, then he probably also had G.I. bill help. He also had a government job, although it said low paid. I wonder how that squares with the libertarian he's become. He benefited by low cost higher education, GI bill, government jobs.
Even in the late 60's, early 70's in california, UC university system was almost free. Ronald Reagan, another pull yourself up by your bootstraps guy, didn't much like that when he became governor, and worked to change it to where it is very costly now. Not trying to destroy the spirit of the thread, just wondering how some that made it with help from the government, condemn government help.

Sowell is one who believes those who earn what they get benefit most from what they get. It does not matter what his circumstances were when he got his college education. He grew up, was educated in inner city schools, and Harvard was not 'cheap' for anybody back then. Affirmative Action didn't exist yet so he had to get into Harvard on merit alone. There was no other way provided for him.

Sowell had to succeed in a segregated society and being of limited means and he still succeeded far beyond what others of similar means and many with far more advantages and privileges succeeded. I don't know if he received G.I. benefits for his servince in Korea, but certainly it would have made only a small dent in a Harvard tuition even back then. So he worked whatever jobs he could get in order to pay for his education however long it would take him to get it. He knows what those provided with inspiration and a bit of encouragement can achieve if they are inclined to do so.

He does not believe infusing lower income kids with class envy and a sense of deprivation or disadvantage is doing them any favors whatsoever. He believes in infusing people with a sense of hope and possibilities and the will to succeed no matter what hand they are initially dealt.

You keep parroting that same ignorant false "envy" premise. But that is what parrots do, they mimic because parrots are unable to think.

Have an adult read the NYT article and decipher it for you...

Nagib Gonzalez University Heights Age 18 Grade 12

Nagib “My mom works really hard for a little bit of money. I used to be ashamed to admit this, but now I embrace it. Being poor is the biggest motivation for me because I come from the bottom, and my goal is to reach the top. People say that success is not determined by income, and I mostly agree, but I want my success to be determined by income. I want to be able to support my family. Also, most of the things that I worry about now are money-related, and I don’t want my children to have to worry like my siblings and I did.”

Angie Ramirez University Heights Age 18 Grade 12

Angie “Most of my peers are in the same predicament as I am, of not being able to afford a private education. So that’s the group I relate to — kids who are trying to get an education to make themselves better or help their families out. We want to get out of the hood and get a good job in order to have a better future.”

Thomas Sowell is a a divisive piece of shit who knows where his bread is buttered. He constantly puts out this kind of garbage to rile up all you ignorant parrots to mimic.

 

[Flopper]

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the segregated inner NYC school he attended in the 1940's and the 'all white' school located a few blocks away. The records indicated that in some years the 'black' school performed slightly better in the core subjects of math, reading, science etc. and in some years the 'white' school did slightly better, but overall the two were definitely on a par with each other. And he is adament that in both schools the kids got an education that prepared them to be able to compete with anybody.

In a recent column he cites a different comparison--allowing the kids from a poor inner city school to compare their circumstances with rich kids attending a private school charging $43k in annual tuition. And how demoralizing that has been for the poorer kids and how much it is taking away from basic education in those core subjects.

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

I think throwing together students from a posh private school with poorer kids in public schools is pointless. Are high school kids in low income public schools or affluent kids in expensive private schools unaware of the differences? Are affluent kids heading to the best colleges in the country and a professional career going to bond with poor kids headed to trade schools, community college, and a life of low income jobs, unemployment and poverty? I think not.

Which was pretty much Sowell's point I think. Of course the NYT mag cherry picked a lot of 'feel good' and social engineering kinds of comments to supplement the story, but for Sowell, the bottom line is why are schools engaging in this kind of program in the first place? It doesn't do the poor kids one bit of good; it is unlikely to have much if any lasting effect on the rich kids other than to give them more ammo for sloganeering. His point is that the time and effort should be focused on giving those poor kids a sufficient education in the basics so they will be equipped to compete with anybody and change their circumstances for the better.

I doubt a program like this will actually do much harm but I also doubt that it will do much good. Kids are much more aware today of what's going on in the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think throwing together students from a posh private school with poorer kids in public schools is pointless. Are high school kids in low income public schools or affluent kids in expensive private schools unaware of the differences? Are affluent kids heading to the best colleges in the country and a professional career going to bond with poor kids headed to trade schools, community college, and a life of low income jobs, unemployment and poverty? I think not.

Which was pretty much Sowell's point I think. Of course the NYT mag cherry picked a lot of 'feel good' and social engineering kinds of comments to supplement the story, but for Sowell, the bottom line is why are schools engaging in this kind of program in the first place? It doesn't do the poor kids one bit of good; it is unlikely to have much if any lasting effect on the rich kids other than to give them more ammo for sloganeering. His point is that the time and effort should be focused on giving those poor kids a sufficient education in the basics so they will be equipped to compete with anybody and change their circumstances for the better.

I doubt a program like this will actually do much harm but I also doubt that it will do much good. Kids are much more aware today of what's going on in the world.

You're probably right, but the alarm bells went off in my head as I read the story. The current trend to gain political power and influence through promotion of class envy and contempt for the rich and successful didn't occur in a vacuum. And I think Thomas Sowell was also thinking about that when he was writing his essay. What better way to brainwash the new crop of subjects into believing their leaders are right and just to make economic war on the rich and successful?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The laws in this country have allowed for the development of institutionalized segregation when it comes to education. Based on the color green.

This guy: https://law.gsu.edu/directory/publications.php?id=46 has REALLY done exhaustive research on the subject.

There is NO WAY that a black school performed on par with a white school during our period of segregation unless the white school consisted of students from equally disadvantaged ( economically ) communities. That, of course, was very rare.

The US can......at the same time....boast of having one of the most advanced and effective public school systems in the world and the shame of having one of the world's worst public school systems. It entirely depends on where you fall on the economic spectrum.

 

[LoneLaugher]

....He does not believe infusing lower income kids with class envy and a sense of deprivation or disadvantage is doing them any favors whatsoever. He believes in infusing people with a sense of hope and possibilities and the will to succeed no matter what hand they are initially dealt.

I disagree about that. I don't think he has a very optimistic message at all. I don't think enough people speak the more realistic truth--if you work your ass off, you will probably do a little better than your parents and that is good enough. Too many people paint these pie in the sky pictures of what hard work brings, setting people up for disappointment. Even if he had overcome great barriers, he is still a statistical outlier, and people should stop pretending that everybody can have the success he has, or a rap star has, or a pro athlete has.

It all comes down to OPPORTUNITY. Hard work is great. But without opportunity, it is not going to lift a family out of poverty.

If hard work created opportunity........we'd have very few poor people in this nation. This is a hard working nation.

 

[sameech]

But you see, you have reverted to hyperbole instead of seeing what his message actually is. He has never said everybody will succeed equally. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, the same stamina, the same vision, the same willingness to make certain sacrifices, or the same goals. What is success to one person may be something entirely different to the next.

But like Thomas Sowell I was of a generation similar to his--I, my husband, and most of our combined fairly wide circle of friends all started out with pretty much nothing. Nobody could live on minimum wage and a 40 hour week. Our parents were not in a position to help much if at all. There were no government benefits available to us at all except for the G.I. bill for some who went into the military for awhile. My hubby was in the National Guard for 8 years but didn't pull enough active duty to qualify for the G.I. bill.

But without exception, we all--every single one of us--worked our way out of literal poverty and squarely into the middle class. Some prospered more than others, yes, but we all accomplished enough to enjoy a nice slice of the American dream. But also, we never had it thrown in our faces that we were poor or disadvantaged or oppressed or that others had more than they deserved to have. For us, it was always the hope and vision that we were capable of achieving a better life and it was up to us to do it. And we did.

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

 

[Disir]

Which was pretty much Sowell's point I think. Of course the NYT mag cherry picked a lot of 'feel good' and social engineering kinds of comments to supplement the story, but for Sowell, the bottom line is why are schools engaging in this kind of program in the first place? It doesn't do the poor kids one bit of good; it is unlikely to have much if any lasting effect on the rich kids other than to give them more ammo for sloganeering. His point is that the time and effort should be focused on giving those poor kids a sufficient education in the basics so they will be equipped to compete with anybody and change their circumstances for the better.

I doubt a program like this will actually do much harm but I also doubt that it will do much good. Kids are much more aware today of what's going on in the world.

You're probably right, but the alarm bells went off in my head as I read the story. The current trend to gain political power and influence through promotion of class envy and contempt for the rich and successful didn't occur in a vacuum. And I think Thomas Sowell was also thinking about that when he was writing his essay. What better way to brainwash the new crop of subjects into believing their leaders are right and just to make economic war on the rich and successful?

Or. Try this just once. Or it allows the kids on the lower socioeconomic scale to realize that the folks on the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder are human.

The more I think about it this has nothing to do with the kids on the lower end of the socioeconomic end. It has everything to do with protecting those kids at the upper end. There is not one bit of concern for those at the bottom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How ironic.

You're a two-bit fellow traveler apologist for communist traitors and spies.

How funny from the running dog of the commies. Still quoting commie drivel from WHO?

Fakey, we all know that you quoted propaganda published by the official propaganda organs of the communist government of Cuba. Who are you trying to kid?

A very small minority of all the links I have posted from right to left, while you exclusively post commie and socialist crap.

You are an anarchist, you say, and I say a very confused one

 

[Foxfyre]

But you see, you have reverted to hyperbole instead of seeing what his message actually is. He has never said everybody will succeed equally. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, the same stamina, the same vision, the same willingness to make certain sacrifices, or the same goals. What is success to one person may be something entirely different to the next.

But like Thomas Sowell I was of a generation similar to his--I, my husband, and most of our combined fairly wide circle of friends all started out with pretty much nothing. Nobody could live on minimum wage and a 40 hour week. Our parents were not in a position to help much if at all. There were no government benefits available to us at all except for the G.I. bill for some who went into the military for awhile. My hubby was in the National Guard for 8 years but didn't pull enough active duty to qualify for the G.I. bill.

But without exception, we all--every single one of us--worked our way out of literal poverty and squarely into the middle class. Some prospered more than others, yes, but we all accomplished enough to enjoy a nice slice of the American dream. But also, we never had it thrown in our faces that we were poor or disadvantaged or oppressed or that others had more than they deserved to have. For us, it was always the hope and vision that we were capable of achieving a better life and it was up to us to do it. And we did.

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

 

[LoneLaugher]

But you see, you have reverted to hyperbole instead of seeing what his message actually is. He has never said everybody will succeed equally. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, the same stamina, the same vision, the same willingness to make certain sacrifices, or the same goals. What is success to one person may be something entirely different to the next.

But like Thomas Sowell I was of a generation similar to his--I, my husband, and most of our combined fairly wide circle of friends all started out with pretty much nothing. Nobody could live on minimum wage and a 40 hour week. Our parents were not in a position to help much if at all. There were no government benefits available to us at all except for the G.I. bill for some who went into the military for awhile. My hubby was in the National Guard for 8 years but didn't pull enough active duty to qualify for the G.I. bill.

But without exception, we all--every single one of us--worked our way out of literal poverty and squarely into the middle class. Some prospered more than others, yes, but we all accomplished enough to enjoy a nice slice of the American dream. But also, we never had it thrown in our faces that we were poor or disadvantaged or oppressed or that others had more than they deserved to have. For us, it was always the hope and vision that we were capable of achieving a better life and it was up to us to do it. And we did.

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

No. We do know. There is more opportunity for some than others.....and this is, for most people, THE primary factor that determines how far up the ladder a person is going to climb.

I believe that many "conservatives" are drawn to the sort of bile that Sowell emits because they have a need to believe that they are high achievers and have worked harder or made better choices than others. It is insecurity more than anything else. By denying that they have had more opportunity....by chance or by station at birth...than those who they view as underachievers.....they get to take that "holier than thou" POV that is so common among them.

In general....meaning for the vast majority of people....where and to whom one is born has more to do with ones success in life than any work ethic or innovative spirit.

 

[Disir]

They are drawn to him because they have a black man saying what the white clowns can't get away with. That's why.

 

[Samson]

What do you think? Is he right in his perception of the negative effect it is having on the poor kids? That is is shortchanging their eduction more than ever? Or do you think he is exaggerating the negatives and this experiment in multiculturalism is more likely a good thing?

Here is his column published earlier this month:
Thomas Sowell: Moral Bankruptcy

Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.

The NYT reported these "results:"

"One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."

I'm really not sure what point Sowell is making. There does seem to have been a significant, if unexpected educational experience.

Was it a "Good" experience?

Maybe not, but then not all life's lessons are all that easy to swallow.

Getting raped or mugged is also an "educational experience."

The hyperbole is impressive:

I differ to your expertise.

 

[Samson]

How funny from the running dog of the commies. Still quoting commie drivel from WHO?

Fakey, we all know that you quoted propaganda published by the official propaganda organs of the communist government of Cuba. Who are you trying to kid?

A very small minority of all the links I have posted from right to left, while you exclusively post commie and socialist crap.

You are an anarchist, you say, and I say a very confused one

You've posted a link to support your ramblings?

 

[sameech]

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

I have no problem with wealthier kids having more.

I bolded the two parts of your post for similar reasons. I don't know your situation, but maybe your parents gave you all they could and maybe what you had was better than what they had. The implication of your posts and people like Sowell is that those who don't make it just didn't work hard enough. It is no different than the implication in the prosperity gospel that those who aren't wealthy are less favored by God.

In my experience, that just isn't how the world works and by selling that message people like you and Sowell are just beating down on people. My parents worked their butts off and I was grateful for what they gave me. My sister, however, has the same attitude that you seem to have about your parents--they could have given you more. My parents gave us better than they had growing up, and in this day and age, people are lucky to break even with what their parents gave them because the opportunities are getting fewer and further between.

I see no difference between the parents who coddle their kids and the ones who feed them the "if you just work hard" line. Kids need to be learning the cold hard truth--bust your ass and you still might not make it, but at least you can hold your head high. Sowell has this attitude like if you don't make it, you should hang your head in shame IMO. Both extremes are setting people up for failure out of the gate by setting unrealistic expectations in the minds of people.

 

[bripat9643]

How funny from the running dog of the commies. Still quoting commie drivel from WHO?

Fakey, we all know that you quoted propaganda published by the official propaganda organs of the communist government of Cuba. Who are you trying to kid?

A very small minority of all the links I have posted from right to left, while you exclusively post commie and socialist crap.

You are an anarchist, you say, and I say a very confused one

Yeah, we know, Fakey. After you got nailed you were careful not to do it again. That doesn't alter the fact that you're doing a perfect imitation of an anti-American pinko in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.

The NYT reported these "results:"

"One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."

I'm really not sure what point Sowell is making. There does seem to have been a significant, if unexpected educational experience.

Was it a "Good" experience?

Maybe not, but then not all life's lessons are all that easy to swallow.

Getting raped or mugged is also an "educational experience."

The hyperbole is impressive:

I differ to your expertise.

The word is "defer."

What I attempted to point out is that there are some things kids are better off not learning.

 

[SAYIT]

But you see, you have reverted to hyperbole instead of seeing what his message actually is. He has never said everybody will succeed equally. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, the same stamina, the same vision, the same willingness to make certain sacrifices, or the same goals. What is success to one person may be something entirely different to the next.

But like Thomas Sowell I was of a generation similar to his--I, my husband, and most of our combined fairly wide circle of friends all started out with pretty much nothing. Nobody could live on minimum wage and a 40 hour week. Our parents were not in a position to help much if at all. There were no government benefits available to us at all except for the G.I. bill for some who went into the military for awhile. My hubby was in the National Guard for 8 years but didn't pull enough active duty to qualify for the G.I. bill.

But without exception, we all--every single one of us--worked our way out of literal poverty and squarely into the middle class. Some prospered more than others, yes, but we all accomplished enough to enjoy a nice slice of the American dream. But also, we never had it thrown in our faces that we were poor or disadvantaged or oppressed or that others had more than they deserved to have. For us, it was always the hope and vision that we were capable of achieving a better life and it was up to us to do it. And we did.

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

All of this "unfair" chatter comes from the mindset that awards trophies to every kid. In that world there are no winners and no need to strive to be one.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

All of this "unfair" chatter comes from the mindset that awards trophies to every kid. In that world there are no winners and no need to strive to be one.

You mean that mindset that doesn't really exist?

 

[SAYIT]

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

I have no problem with wealthier kids having more.

I bolded the two parts of your post for similar reasons. I don't know your situation, but maybe your parents gave you all they could and maybe what you had was better than what they had. The implication of your posts and people like Sowell is that those who don't make it just didn't work hard enough. It is no different than the implication in the prosperity gospel that those who aren't wealthy are less favored by God.

In my experience, that just isn't how the world works and by selling that message people like you and Sowell are just beating down on people. My parents worked their butts off and I was grateful for what they gave me. My sister, however, has the same attitude that you seem to have about your parents--they could have given you more. My parents gave us better than they had growing up, and in this day and age, people are lucky to break even with what their parents gave them because the opportunities are getting fewer and further between.

I see no difference between the parents who coddle their kids and the ones who feed them the "if you just work hard" line. Kids need to be learning the cold hard truth--bust your ass and you still might not make it, but at least you can hold your head high. Sowell has this attitude like if you don't make it, you should hang your head in shame IMO. Both extremes are setting people up for failure out of the gate by setting unrealistic expectations in the minds of people.

I believe you are splitting hairs. You both seem to come from homes where you learned ambition, education and hard work might lead to financial success which you might use to provide your kids with more opportunities. Hopefully your kids learned the same lessons. In my house we were taught that if we didn't do better than Mom and Dad that they had failed. Couldn't let them down.

 

[SAYIT]

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

All of this "unfair" chatter comes from the mindset that awards trophies to every kid. In that world there are no winners and no need to strive to be one.

You mean that mindset that doesn't really exist?

It's damaging. We rode bikes without helmets, drank from the stream, had no seat belts or video games, and left the house after breakfast and returned for dinner. We got bumps, bruises and broken bones but we rubbed dirt on the wounds, got back on our bikes and kept right on going. What did not kill us...